Corbiere v Dulley (No 2)

The case of Corbiere v Dulley (No 2) involved the plaintiff trustees seeking summary judgment for part of the relief they sought against the defendants. The trustees claimed that the defendants had received certain assets for the benefit of the beneficiaries of a trust established under the will of Dudley Ernest Sandford Dulley. The legal issues before the court were whether there existed a real prospect that the defendants could successfully defend the claims and whether there was a need for a trial of part or all of the claim. The court was required to determine these issues based on the evidence presented through affidavits.

In its reasoning, the court noted that it was not the function of the court to decide disputed questions of fact when determining the application for summary judgment. Instead, the court had to assume the correctness of the facts as presented in the affidavits. The court found that there was no real prospect that the defendants could successfully defend the claims regarding the net proceeds of sale of the Jefferson Lane property, as these proceeds were held in the trust account maintained by one of the defendants' firms. The court also found that there was no real prospect that the defendants could successfully defend the claims regarding the Yamba and Ocean Shores properties, as they had held these properties on trust for the plaintiffs since acquiring them.

The court granted the plaintiffs' application for summary judgment in part, declaring that the net proceeds of sale of the Jefferson Lane property were received by the defendants for the benefit of the trust beneficiaries, that the defendants held the Yamba and Ocean Shores properties on trust for the plaintiffs, and that title to those properties should vest in the plaintiffs as trustees. The court also granted leave for the plaintiffs to amend their claim to include a claim for an order that one of the defendants pay a certain sum to the plaintiffs as trustees of the estate. The application for summary judgment was dismissed in all other respects, and the costs of the application were reserved to the trial. The case was placed on the Self-Represented Litigants’ List, and each party was granted liberty to apply on three days’ notice to the other parties.